Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1887-01-07

4
Ibis resolution such piece of road wa'
recognized as part of the line, the early
completion of which WAS the main oh
icct Of the entire legislation upon the
subject therefore, what was SAID ant
lone in one contingency should have
little or no weight i'll determining the
construction OF what was said in the
other.
II follows that, in determining the
fo - Of such granting words the refer
lrncc therein to the act Of incorporation
should b. held to be the original act
First, because it is probable that if the
act as amended had been intended, il
would have been so stated !; and see
ondlv, because such amendments as
had been made had not changed such
original act so far as its bearing upon
this question is concerned.
| What then is the fair intcntment OF
the words in question, "With the
privileges grants, and duties provided
for, in lis act Of Incorporation?
The privileges and duties which it
had under the original act We're to con-
strlct main line railroad from the
Lakes to the Sound, in the manner,
and by the means, therein provided,
and also to construct branch line
down the valley Of the Columbia.
The grants therein named were, twen-
ty sections Of land per mile on each
side OF such main or branch line wien
located in the Territories, and hall
that amount when located in a State,
rs such lines should thereafter be de-
| iinitcly located and constructed by the
company.
The privileges and duties under the
| joint resolution were the same; that
is. to construct main line and Il
branch. This not only appears from
this granting clause, but more fully
from the entire language and scope of
| the resolution. There WAS then no
change in the resolution from the
terms ofthe original act in regard to the
relations OF the company as to rights
and duties, the only change being in
| the location of the lines to which those
rights and duties attached.
Such being the case, it seems TO me
that even if the word "grant" had
| been omitted from the resolution, still
the grant of forty sections per mile in
the Territories made by the original
act would have attached to the main
and branch lines when definitely To-
Gated under the new directions, the
same as it would il they had been so
located under the old The cist of the
change wrought by the resolution was
not in the main line or the branch rs
authorized by the original act, as con-
trolling the building thereof, or the
grant therefor; but was simply to
change the directions under which the
same should he located by the COM
pany. If this is reasonably clear with
out the aid of the word grant" does
it not become certain with such aid?
We then have in addition to what
We have already seen this clause
with the grants provided for in its
act of incorporation.
| Those grants were, as we have al.
ready seen, a definite number of sec
tons per mile for the entire main and
branch line, as the same should be def.
nitcly located by the company, and
there seems little force in the claim
that the grant thus provided for the
whole of the main line should be cut
down and restricted to a part thereof
simply by change in the directions
under which the same should be locat-
ed.
But it is argued that we must insert
the word same" before the word
grant" and that the clause will then
mean the identical same grant provid.
ed for in the original act.
| rA,,nn,t,n,, Ill, 10 L.
struction to which we shall then he
forced will not be more favorable to the
Government than the other.
For the words "identical same
grant" could only be properly used as
referring to a grant that had been ac.
tually settled and determined, and the
extent and nature thereof fully fixed
And even Il superficial examination OF
the original act of incorporation will
show clearly that the only grant there.
III thus fixed and determined is one OF
So much per mile of the road to be
thereafter located, so that if it WAS the
intent of this resolution to convey the
Identical same grant, it could not pos
sibly refer To other than grant by the
mile, because description of sucl
grant by the mile is the only one sui
licicntly definite and certain to bt
properly referred to as the " same" ol
identical"
And do not think it possible thai
Congress could have intended by tn,
use OF the language in question to hav,
referred to the original grant in tn,
aggregate, and thereby to provide tina
the company have just as much ant
no more land under the new condi
tions as under the old, as such n con
struction would be absurd and max,
the resolution void for uncertainty
fol the reason that the aggregate o
the grant as whole was absOlutel,